I've read the FAQ, and I still can't find "answers" to some things

When ever people bring up questions or evidence, the most common reply is "Go read the FAQ"  Well having read through the FAQ, I have to say it doesn't answer several questions I (and I'm sure others) still have.

1.  What exactly is the motive for this conspiracy?  The FAQ says that the motive is unknown, but probably money.  Money is a great motivator, but I can't figure this part out.  Firstly, how does a lying about the earth being round make money, when a flat one wouldn't?  Assuming that the motivator is money, where is this money coming from?  And where is it going?  Would taxes not exist if the earth was flat?  If the motivator is money, they sure are spending a lot of it on phony space programs, covering up lies, creating lies, paying people off, etc.

2. Next, how were pictures from the 60's and 70's faked sufficiently enough to stand up to today's technology?  I've seen books published in the 60's and 70's showing the Earth, moon, sun, etc.  Even photos taken today and photo shopped have very clear, tell tale signs of altering that people would find.  They always do.  Look at all the instances in which newspapers have faked insignificant pictures only to be caught.  If people are checking insignificant pictures, its safe to assume someone is checking significant ones as well.

3.  Comets are not really explained.  Comets circle the sun on very predictable time tables.  If the earth is accelerating upwards, how is it that comets return?  Are comets not only moving upwards like earth up also in an orbiting pattern?  And if it is, what is causing it to orbit like it is since gravity doesn't exist.  Another problem I have is why we see a comet for several days, but we don't seem them 24/7 while they are in view.  So if the earth was flat this would mean that comets come to Earth, fall into an orbiting pattern like the sun and moon, circles several times and then shoots off? 

4.  The circling of the sun and moon makes no sense.  According to the FAQ the Sun and Moon are both 32 miles in diameter and circle the earth at a height of 3000 feet.  What isn't explained in the least is how the Sun and Moon manage to stay in "orbit" above FE.  It defies all logic and laws of nature.

Well Ill leave it at that and see what kind of answers I get.

1.  What exactly is the motive for this conspiracy?  The FAQ says that the motive is unknown, but probably money.  Money is a great motivator, but I can't figure this part out.  Firstly, how does a lying about the earth being round make money, when a flat one wouldn't?  Assuming that the motivator is money, where is this money coming from?  And where is it going?  Would taxes not exist if the earth was flat?  If the motivator is money, they sure are spending a lot of it on phony space programs, covering up lies, creating lies, paying people off, etc.

Funding for the space program is going into someone's pocket if there is no space program.

2. Next, how were pictures from the 60's and 70's faked sufficiently enough to stand up to today's technology?  I've seen books published in the 60's and 70's showing the Earth, moon, sun, etc.  Even photos taken today and photo shopped have very clear, tell tale signs of altering that people would find.  They always do.  Look at all the instances in which newspapers have faked insignificant pictures only to be caught.  If people are checking insignificant pictures, its safe to assume someone is checking significant ones as well.

With all the money for the space program, there's plenty for image manipulation technology with lots still left over for profit.

3.  Comets are not really explained.  Comets circle the sun on very predictable time tables.  If the earth is accelerating upwards, how is it that comets return?  Are comets not only moving upwards like earth up also in an orbiting pattern?  And if it is, what is causing it to orbit like it is since gravity doesn't exist.  Another problem I have is why we see a comet for several days, but we don't seem them 24/7 while they are in view.  So if the earth was flat this would mean that comets come to Earth, fall into an orbiting pattern like the sun and moon, circles several times and then shoots off? 

Do a search, I explained this once, diagram and all.

4.  The circling of the sun and moon makes no sense.  According to the FAQ the Sun and Moon are both 32 miles in diameter and circle the earth at a height of 3000 feet.  What isn't explained in the least is how the Sun and Moon manage to stay in "orbit" above FE.  It defies all logic and laws of nature.

Orbits defy laws of nature? Interesting, maybe you should tell Kepler that.

Funding for the space program is going into someone's pocket if there is no space program.

No, no, no. See, it doesn't work like that. The proponents of this "conspiracy" are the GOVERNMENTS of the world. NASA is just a tool. So while it makes sense that the government pours money into NASA, who's conspiracists line their pockets, what DOESN'T make sense is how the GOVERNMENTS benefit. They're the ones spending millions of dollars to keep RET alive. How, possibly, could THEY get money out of it?

No, no, no. See, it doesn't work like that. The proponents of this "conspiracy" are the GOVERNMENTS of the world. NASA is just a tool. So while it makes sense that the government pours money into NASA, who's conspiracists line their pockets, what DOESN'T make sense is how the GOVERNMENTS benefit. They're the ones spending millions of dollars to keep RET alive. How, possibly, could THEY get money out of it?

The consensus among FE'ers at the moment is that the governments are in the dark about it, and it is the space agencies that are making the money.

Quote from: SEALBoy on September 21, 2008, 10:59:52 PM

No, no, no. See, it doesn't work like that. The proponents of this "conspiracy" are the GOVERNMENTS of the world. NASA is just a tool. So while it makes sense that the government pours money into NASA, who's conspiracists line their pockets, what DOESN'T make sense is how the GOVERNMENTS benefit. They're the ones spending millions of dollars to keep RET alive. How, possibly, could THEY get money out of it?

The consensus among FE'ers at the moment is that the governments are in the dark about it, and it is the space agencies that are making the money.

If the governments are not involved in the conspiracy, then data gathered from government funded expeditions to the south pole (see Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station) should be considered trustworthy.

If the governments are not involved in the conspiracy, then data gathered from government funded expeditions to the south pole (see Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station) should be considered trustworthy.

Why shouldn't the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station exist on a Flat Earth?

Quote from: MadDogX on September 21, 2008, 11:28:43 PM

If the governments are not involved in the conspiracy, then data gathered from government funded expeditions to the south pole (see Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station) should be considered trustworthy.

Why shouldn't the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station exist on a Flat Earth?

Because it's at the geographic south pole. Where would that be on FE?

Because it's at the geographic south pole. Where would that be on FE?

How do you know it is at the geographic south pole?

Quote from: MadDogX on September 21, 2008, 11:35:34 PM

Because it's at the geographic south pole. Where would that be on FE?

How do you know it is at the geographic south pole?

Because the US government, which (according to a consensus among FE'ers) is not involved in "the conspiracy", says it is.

Because the US government, which (according to a consensus among FE'ers) is not involved in "the conspiracy", says it is.

The US government also said there were WMDs in Iraq. What is your point?

Quote from: MadDogX on September 21, 2008, 11:38:58 PM

Because the US government, which (according to a consensus among FE'ers) is not involved in "the conspiracy", says it is.

The US government also said there were WMDs in Iraq. What is your point?

What's yours? Going to the south pole and, for example, observing that you are directly underneath the celestial south pole, that the Earth is neither infinite nor is there an edge, that there is no ice wall etc. is completely unrelated to the iraq war.

What's yours? Going to the south pole and, for example, observing that you are directly underneath the celestial south pole, that the Earth is neither infinite nor is there an edge, that there is no ice wall etc. is completely unrelated to the iraq war.

Celestial south and geographic south are not always the same direction on a Flat Earth. Tell me, how exactly does someone observe that the Earth is not infinite, that it does not have an edge, and that there is no ice wall? How is the absence of these things observed?

Celestial south and geographic south are not always the same direction on a Flat Earth.

Irrelevant.

Tell me, how exactly does someone observe that the Earth is not infinite, that it does not have an edge, and that there is no ice wall? How is the absence of these things observed?

By circumnavigating the south pole and by directly crossing it would be a good start. Both have been done.

Irrelevant.

You brought up the issue of celestial south. If it's so irrelevant, then don't talk about it.

By circumnavigating the south pole and by directly crossing it would be a good start. Both have been done.

How exactly does that show what you have described?

Quote from: MadDogX on September 21, 2008, 11:55:16 PM

Irrelevant.

You brought up the issue of celestial south. If it's so irrelevant, then don't talk about it.

The issue itself is not irrelevant. The point you raised was.

Quote from: MadDogX on September 21, 2008, 11:55:16 PM

By circumnavigating the south pole and by directly crossing it would be a good start. Both have been done.

How exactly does that show what you have described?

Antarctica on RE has a much smaller radius than the ice ring on FE. Circumnavigating it would take a lot longer on FE.

Crossing Antarctica, which has been done when people circumnavigated the Earth over the poles, would not be possible on FE.

The issue itself is not irrelevant. The point you raised was.

How is celestial south relevant if it is not the same thing as geographic south?

Antarctica on RE has a much smaller radius than the ice ring on FE. Circumnavigating it would take a lot longer on FE.

And how would one know when one has circumnavigated it? Is there some kind of billboard on the coast that they can track their journey by? Or would they be navigating using the stars, which in FET would cause them to think they had circumnavigated it after covering only a fairly short portion of the coast?

Crossing Antarctica, which has been done when people circumnavigated the Earth over the poles, would not be possible on FE.

Crossing the entire thing would not be possible, which is why it has never been done. People have just crossed peninsulas jutting out from the ice wall.

Quote from: MadDogX on September 22, 2008, 12:01:51 AM

The issue itself is not irrelevant. The point you raised was.

How is celestial south relevant if it is not the same thing as geographic south?

Because the variations are minimal.

Quote from: MadDogX on September 22, 2008, 12:01:51 AM

Antarctica on RE has a much smaller radius than the ice ring on FE. Circumnavigating it would take a lot longer on FE.

And how would one know when one has circumnavigated it? Is there some kind of billboard on the coast that they can track their journey by? Or would they be navigating using the stars, which in FET would cause them to think they had circumnavigated it after covering only a fairly short portion of the coast?

Natural landmarks. Artificial landmarks. Also, if you were to travel a short way around the ice wall on FE, you would find yourself quite some distance away from your point of origin. I'm pretty sure people would notice this.

Quote from: MadDogX on September 22, 2008, 12:01:51 AM

Crossing Antarctica, which has been done when people circumnavigated the Earth over the poles, would not be possible on FE.

Crossing the entire thing would not be possible, which is why it has never been done. People have just crossed peninsulas jutting out from the ice wall.

It has been crossed via the geographical south pole. Sure, the people probably didn't take the longest route across antarctica, but that doesn't change the fact that they ended up at a place which - according to FE - would have been on the other side of the planet.

Because the variations are minimal.

They become more significant as you go further south. South of the south celestial poles, celestial south is closer to geographic north than to geographic south.

Natural landmarks. Artificial landmarks. Also, if you were to travel a short way around the ice wall on FE, you would find yourself quite some distance away from your point of origin. I'm pretty sure people would notice this.

Quite some distance, yes. At that latitude, the angle of longitude subtended by travelling such a distance is fairly small.

It has been crossed via the geographical south pole. Sure, the people probably didn't take the longest route across antarctica, but that doesn't change the fact that they ended up at a place which - according to FE - would have been on the other side of the planet.

Source, please.

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on September 22, 2008, 12:10:26 AM

It has been crossed via the geographical south pole. Sure, the people probably didn't take the longest route across antarctica, but that doesn't change the fact that they ended up at a place which - according to FE - would have been on the other side of the planet.

Source, please.

A quick google search turned up this: http://www.anta.canterbury.ac.nz/resources/history.html. The reference to the south pole is close to the bottom of the page. I'm sure there are more references.

A quick google search turned up this: http://www.anta.canterbury.ac.nz/resources/history.html. The reference to the south pole is close to the bottom of the page. I'm sure there are more references.

I was actually wondering what your source was for the location they turned up in being on the other side of the planet. You can't assume RE to disprove FE.

Quote from: MadDogX on September 22, 2008, 12:27:15 AM

A quick google search turned up this: http://www.anta.canterbury.ac.nz/resources/history.html. The reference to the south pole is close to the bottom of the page. I'm sure there are more references.

I was actually wondering what your source was for the location they turned up in being on the other side of the planet. You can't assume RE to disprove FE.

FE'ers assume FE to disprove RE on a daily basis - but in any case, I did nothing of the sort.

Here is a more detailed source, showing the route they took: http://www.transglobe-expedition.org/page/the-expedition

FE'ers assume FE to disprove RE on a daily basis - but in any case, I did nothing of the sort.

Here is a more detailed source, showing the route they took: http://www.transglobe-expedition.org/page/the-expedition

And here is one possible route they might have taken on the Flat Earth:



The other, of course, being a counterclockwise journey from Cape Town to Auckland. Because this FE map is not entirely accurate, the journey through Antarctica appears more stretched than it really would have been - the Pacific is not really quite so large, and there is probably a more prominent outcrop of land that they crossed, removing the necessity to travel close to the rim.

Nice try, but I don't see how you're going to rationalize their route on any FE map without significantly increasing the total length of the journey. In your example, the distances from Africa to Antarctica and from Antarctica to New Zealand are extremely long compared to the actual route.

EDIT: I am aware that the map you used is not accurate, but that only weakens your position further. Being unable or unwilling to provide a reasonably accurate map of FE does not mean you can simply create a new one to fit whatever argument you are trying to make.

Nice try, but I don't see how you're going to rationalize their route on any FE map without significantly increasing the total length of the journey. In your example, the distances from Africa to Antarctica and from Antarctica to New Zealand are extremely long compared to the actual route.

Did you even look at the link?

http://www.transglobe-expedition.org/page/the-expedition

It says right there in the link that the route was over 100,000 miles long. That's four times around the equator of the Round Earth model and four times across the diameter of the FE model. The red line Bin Laden made on his map certainly seems to match up, if not understate the reported distance.

Quote from: MadDogX on September 22, 2008, 01:37:45 AM

Nice try, but I don't see how you're going to rationalize their route on any FE map without significantly increasing the total length of the journey. In your example, the distances from Africa to Antarctica and from Antarctica to New Zealand are extremely long compared to the actual route.

Did you even look at the link?

http://www.transglobe-expedition.org/page/the-expedition

It says right there in the link that the route was over 100,000 miles long. That's four times around the equator of the Round Earth model and four times the diameter of the FE model. The red line Laden made on his map certainly seems to match up, if not understate the reported distance.

I didn't see that before, and it is indeed strange come to think of it. RE vs FE aside, why would the trip be 100,000 miles long in either model? 

LOL, Tom Bishop creates yet another crisis of faith in RE

What's the perimeter of an enclosed fractal again?

The US government also said there were WMDs in Iraq. What is your point?

and that was pointed out as false in what... three months?  Something far less than a year.  Shows how hard it is to keep bad information hidden.

To be fair, I think it's fair to say the U.S. government expected to find something. Had they known they'd have to cover up the truth, I'm sure they would have been able to do so. They were just left with egg on their face because they chose what they thought was a reliable pretext for war, and consequently made fools of themselves.

I prefer to think they were so paranoid that they chose the sketchiest, most circumstantial intelligence they could find and convinced themselves that the risks were worth the war.  If they'd have been more objective I don't think there's any way they could have justified it.  Of course, if you think of it in terms of strategic resource security then invading a nation rich in something you want isn't exactly new in the history of warfare...

It says right there in the link that the route was over 100,000 miles long. That's four times around the equator of the Round Earth model and four times across the diameter of the FE model. The red line Bin Laden made on his map certainly seems to match up, if not understate the reported distance.

How do u think they measured that distance? Did they pace it out? Of course not! They calculated it from maps and GPS data, which assume a round Earth. Also, they would have calculated the length of the route beforehand so they knew how much equipment they would need.

In short, the 100,000 mile figure is based on a RE, so can't be used as proof for FET.